Two GPL Questions

[Karsten M. Self]

on Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 02:12:36PM -0500, Kenny Tilton (ktilton at nyc.rr.com) wrote:
> I was about to release some new stuff of mine under the GNU GPL when I
> noticed something. Not sure of its implications. Any insight
> appreciated:
> 
>     "9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new
>     versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new
>     versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may
>     differ in detail to address new problems or concerns. 
> 
>     Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the
>     Program specifies a version number of this License which applies
>     to it and "any later version", you have the option of following
>     the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later
>     version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program
>     does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose
>     any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation."
> 
> Well, I just noticed that this clause is not all-encompassing. Not
> mentioned is the case where the Program specifies a version number
> /without/ adding allowance for "any later version".

In that case, only the current version(s) or those explicitly specified
by the work's licensing take effect.  See for example the Linux kernel,
which explicitly excludes the "or any later version".

> Anyway, i would find it strange to give the FSF the option effectively
> to change the licensing of my stuff at any point in the future by
> producing a new version of the GPL. I understand the impetus, viz, to
> have all GPL code consistently licensed now and in the future, but the
> price paid is to give FSF control over the licensing of all GPLed code,
> and I thought control was one of the cardinal sins. Well, whadoiknow,
> these issues are all new to me.

You're not the only person to have such concerns, Linus has commented on
this in the past, and his concern is similar to yours.

That said, there are several factors strongly limiting the ability of
the FSF to unilaterally change licensing terms in a way that is grossly
inconsistant with current versions.  Included are RMS's own integrity
and reputation, and the FSF's mission.  On a legal basis, the many
copyright assignments under the the GNU project could be construed as an
obligation to maintain the spirit of the GPL in future versions.

The FSF has addressed this issue in the _FDL_ (the Free *Documentation*
License, _not_ the GPL), with language similar to that I've heard RMS
use in personal communications:

    The Free Software Foundation may publish new, revised versions of
    the GNU Free Documentation License from time to time. Such new
    versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may
    differ in detail to address new problems or concerns. See
    http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/.

See also the GNU GPL FAQ:

    http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#VersionTwoOrLater



I've noted myself in the past that licensing authority is one of the key
control points with regard to free software.  It's a point which is
rarely given the emphasis I believe it deserves.  It's a strong argument
IMO for _not_ authoring your own license, as you create your own
credibility problem, and indeed a number of packages have had
difficulties arising from a rewrite or modification of licensing terms.
DJB's qmail and the OpenBSD ipfilter package notably.

> Well, maybe I can live with #9 if I carefully handle the
> cross-reference from my source to the GPL by restricting it to one
> version. Otherwise, my second problem was with the GNU GPL itself
> being copyrighted and not allowing modifications, which I assume means
> I cannot use it to make my own license revised as I like.

Correct.

Stallman and Kuhn have written on this recently, highlighting the
differences in liberal rights to change code, and liberal rights to
change licensing terms.  It's instructive.  See LinuxToday in the past
few weeks.

> The funny thing is, when I looked at all the other licenses approved
> by the FSF, the only one I saw with a copyleft was the GNU GPL. So
> here I am ready to be a second GNU GPL-compatible copyleft license,
> but I cannot use the GNU GPL as a head start, I have to find
> uncopyrighted licenses, break open my book on Software licensing, etc
> etc.

How many copylefts are really needed?  Consider that each is likely to
be mutually incompatible.  Dual-licensing offers a possible solution,
but it is somewhat nontransitive.

Another way of looking at the situation is to consider the GPL a license
potential sink.  Licensing terms can, in many instances, evolve toward
the GPL.  They cannot evolve away from it.  This is a design goal.

Peace.


-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself at ix.netcom.com>       http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?             Home of the brave
  http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/                   Land of the free
   Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org
Geek for Hire                     http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20011211/db4fd10b/attachment.sig>